50. On August 22, 2008, the Third Criminal Division of the Higher Court of the Judicial District of La Paz partially confirmed the judgment of the court of first instance with respected to the sentences it handed down and revoked the acquittal of the four defendants. In light of that ruling, David Humberto Alarcón Romero, César Altamirano Lavadenz, Juan Alberto Aquize Rada, and Marco Herminio Mena Vargas were found guilty of cover-up and sentenced to two years in prison and payment of damages and costs. In addition, the Division rejected the request referred to above.50 51. Some of the accused also filed incidental pleas, requesting dismissal or termination of the proceedings due to prescription of the criminal suit due to the statute of limitations and the unconstitutional nature of rules invoked by the Criminal Court that had sentenced them, among other legal challenges.51 In a motion issued in October 2009, the Appeals Prosecutor (Fiscal de Recursos) in the Office of the Attorney General requested that the Supreme Court regard those appeals as groundless since in his view both substantive and procedural provisions had been correctly applied.52 That request was addressed by the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in resolutions issued on August 10 abs September 29, 2010, respectively.53 In particular, the Supreme Court found that the alleged prescription of the criminal suit did not apply and that failure to comply with the five-year deadline for processing the case envisaged in criminal law was “due to the behavior of the defendants."54 52. On October 25, 2010, the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed as groundless several appeals for annulment filed by the defense counsel for the convicted. Likewise, in response to an appeal for annulment and cassation filed by family members of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, who had constituted themselves as civil parties to the suit,55 the Criminal Division partially amended the judgment of August 22, 2008, in respect of the penalty imposed on several of those convicted of the crimes of false testimony and cover-up, and also included in that conviction Damián Gutiérrez Castro and Sebastián Quispe Apaza, who, according to the Division had been "unjustifiably omitted in the decision under review .”56 53. According to the information available, in 2013, the Second Criminal Enforcement Court of La Paz issued arrest warrants against Felipe Froilán Molina Bustamante, José Luis Ormachea España, and Franz Appendix 21. Resolution No. 103/2008 issued on August 22, 2008 by the Third Criminal Division of the Higher Court of the Judicial District of La Paz. Attached to the State’s communication of Tuesday, June 1, 2010. With regard to César Altamirano Lavadenz, the ruling establishes that he "participated in the removal of the bodies of Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz and Carlos Flores Bedregal and that the bodies arrived in an irregular manner from the district of Mallasa to the morgue; that after committing these offenses he helped cover up the action of those who committed the crime, by failing to denounce it"; with respect to David Humberto Alarcón Romero and Juan Alberto Aquize Rada, the decision indicates that both participated directly in the removal of the two bodies and did not announce those facts to any government authority; and regarding Juan Alberto Aquize Rada, the ruling establishes that "he was a former DIN driver who, together with the investigated parties, took part in the removal of the bodies from the Mallasa district and drove the bodies to the morgue [...]" and that since he had taken part in said procedure and had not reported it he too bore criminal liability. 51 See, inter alia: Appendix 31. Request to the Third Criminal Division of the Higher Court of La Paz, entitled "Prior objection due to prescription of offenses and maximum duration of proceedings," presented by the defense counsel of Raúl Solano Medina and dated September 2, 2008. Attached to the State’s communication of October 31, 2008. 52 Appendix 32. Opinion of October 2009 issued by Miltón Iván Montellano Roldán, the Appeals Prosecutor of the Office of the Attorney General (Fiscalía General del Estado) Attached to the State’s communication of June 1, 2010. 53 Appendix 33. Supreme Court decision No. 356 handed down on August 10, 2010 by the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, and rejecting an incidental appeal filed by defendant Felipe Froilán Bustamante alleging unconstitutionality. Appendix 34. Supreme Court decision No. 448 handed down on September 29, 2010 by the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice rejecting the appeal for cassation and annulment and request for termination of the criminal proceedings filed by defendants Rogelio Gómez, Gerardo Gianni Prado Herrera, and Felipe Froilán Molina Bustamante. Documents attached to the State’s communication of January 28, 2011. 54 Appendix 34. Supreme Court decision No. 448 handed down on September 29, 2010 by the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice. p. 4. Attached to the State’s communication of January 28, 2011. 55 See: Appendix 35. Appeal for annulment and cassation filed by Olga Beatriz Flores Bedregal with the Third Criminal Division of the Higher Court of Justice on January 24, 2009. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of March 31, 2009. Specifically, in support of that appeal, the petitioner argued that the crimes involved should be considered crimes against humanity because both Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz and Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal had been "victims of torture, murder, and forced disappearance" and that therefore the Court should have applied the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ratified by Bolivia in 2002. 56 Appendix 36. Supreme Court decision No. 504 handed down on October 25, 2010 by the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, file No. 136/09, pp. 14-15. Attached to the State’s communication of January 28, 2011. 50 13